That's increasingly tilting the NFL's level playing field against small-market teams -- and Mr. Jones and his large-market buddies would like to tilt it ever more in their favor. Tilt it enough and the Steelers become the NFL's Pittsburgh Pirates -- and the Super Bowl becomes something only large-market teams win and fewer eyeballs watch.

The real issue isn't players' slice of the NFL pie. It's whether owners will stick with the recipe that makes that pie so massive.

(Well now I have yet another reason to hate the Cryboys and Jerry Jones. - mesa)

kirklandrules

02-28-2011, 02:51 PM

I think the answer is not allowing the salary cap to get beyond the ability of small market teams to be competitive. And so far, I'd say it's been a pretty good balance between smaller and larger markets. Out of Dallas, NYG, NYJ, Chi, Mia, SF, SD, Wash,only NYG has won a title lately. Meanwhile, Pit and GB have had 3 titles in the last 6 years.

ricardisimo

02-28-2011, 03:58 PM

What the hell do television contracts have to do with player salaries? Player salaries are determined as a function of league-wide revenues. It's not player salaries that determine profits, its the other way around. It's a dreamy situation for the owners, and they know it, unless they are simply too greedy to see beyond their own noses.

This is drivel, and pure propaganda from Goodell and co. Don't believe it for a second. The argument goes something like this:
We owners - who wisely instituted profit-sharing decades ago to the greater benefit of all - won't extend that system to TV royalties. We can no longer see the bigger picture, or anything beyond this fiscal quarter, so it's up to the players to make up the difference.
Anytime they want to extend revenue sharing to broadcast contracts, they can do it.

Secondly, how can anyone make the bald-faced scaremongering comment that small teams are getting locked out of success in the NFL a mere two weeks after the Steelers and the Packers met in the Super Bowl. :doh: Obviously, huge market teams like Indy and New Orleans will occasionally sneak in as well, but still... This is propaganda, nonsense and not worth commenting upon any further.

TRH

03-02-2011, 02:16 PM

i hope it doesn't go this way. This is something that everyone and all fans should be concerned about, although there's not enough in-detail information currently to guess an opinion........although there will be "salary cap" adjustments, you can better believe it......... Look no further than the dismal failure of Major League Baseball.

Now a complete and utter bore, the MLB is losing fans faster than they can count them. Revenue sharing (or non-thereof), has ruined the game (along with poor leadership such as the completely inadequate Bud Selig).
Hear that sound when the World Series was played last year??? Listen.......

"Crickets"

*edit* - actually, i don't even think the crickets cared.....

ricardisimo

03-02-2011, 05:06 PM

That judge in Minneapolis ruled decisively (and correctly) against the league, and one day later they are talking about extending the CBA deadline. Oh, what a difference a day (and a literate judge) makes. My guess is that they are going to extend the CBA a little bit... like ten years.

JEFF4i

03-02-2011, 09:11 PM

Players have leverage now. That said, the prospect of no sharing isn't good.

To the person who said, "Salaries are based on NFL-wide factors." Salaries ARE, the ability to pay them, isn't.

ricardisimo

03-03-2011, 05:20 AM

Players have leverage now. That said, the prospect of no sharing isn't good.

To the person who said, "Salaries are based on NFL-wide factors." Salaries ARE, the ability to pay them, isn't.
That's nonsense. Player salaries are determined by the CBA to be approximately 53% of league profits. League profits are shared. What part of this are you not getting?

Your player salaries are covered - absolutely positively - and then on top of that you have TV contracts and $1-a-year stadium leases that guarantee windfall profits year after year for even the worst teams in the smallest markets. You would have to be a mental defective not to turn a profit in the NFL. Unfortunately for the NFL...
http://lh6.ggpht.com/Luckeye.Hater/SC7EmiYV9FI/AAAAAAAAAIY/WfqPyVwkLds/goodell-clueless.jpg

ricardisimo

03-03-2011, 06:57 PM

I think the answer is not allowing the salary cap to get beyond the ability of small market teams to be competitive. And so far, I'd say it's been a pretty good balance between smaller and larger markets. Out of Dallas, NYG, NYJ, Chi, Mia, SF, SD, Wash,only NYG has won a title lately. Meanwhile, Pit and GB have had 3 titles in the last 6 years.
I'm looking at your claim a bit closer, and quite honestly it doesn't make any sense. 1993 is the year free agency as we know it started, so in your view, small market teams should have started getting locked out of success right around then. So, let's take a trip through the history books and see if you're right.

Oops! Turns out that after the Steelers' last SB win of the Noll era, only large cities won until 1997, when Green Bay won it (not coincidentally Reggie White's Packers, his lawsuit having forced the NFL's hand on Plan A Free Agency). Then we see a long series of small- and medium-sized cities winning the Super Bowl right up to this latest one, with only the Giants (once) and the Patriots (thrice) breaking that up.

In other words, your claim is completely the opposite of reality. Sorry, but free agency appears to have actually made small-market teams more - not less - competitive.